I did it for effect, its tv. Im surprised they didnt shoot you. Youre trying to get over the wall . What are you doing climbing up the wall . That wall is for me to stay out of mexico. Tuesday special report is up now. Welcome to washington, im bret baier, this is a fox news alert. Were coming to you tonight from the u. S. Justice department where in just a moment i will talk exclusively with attorney general Loretta Lynch about a host of topics. But first the other stories making headlines today. At this hour, the state department is releasing the final batch of Hillary Clinton emails from her time as secretary of state during which she used a private unsecured server. Were also learning senior clinton aide cheryl mills has
were in the final hours before super tuesday as voters in more than a dozen states, help decide who will be on the november ticket. Donald trump is ahead in several states for the gop. Hillary clinton is expected to win big for the democrats. The secretaries general of nato and the United Nations say the ceasefire in syria is shaky. But holding in its third day. Natos leader says the Alliance Remains concerned about a significant Russian Military buildup in sire ya. But he says there are no plans to put nato troops on the ground in that country. Now, to the interview. Thank you for the time today. Thank you for having me. Apples ceo tim cook told shareholders and investors he is convinced that standing up to the fbi is the right thing to do for privacy and personal safety. Why is he wrong . Well, tim has very strongly held views and i respect them. The reality is, this case is
about the governments need to access evidence as we do in every single case that may be found on an electronic device. As we do in every case. We look at how to best obtain that evidence and determined that for us, the major problem would be if evidence were to be wiped or erased. We did as we do in all these cases and we reached out to the company and said, can you help us preserve this evidence so that we can try on our own to gain access to it. And in order to do that, what we did at first was go to court and get an order that said theres maybe evidence on this phone, you have the right to go into it, use all legal means. As we did we did in this case as we do in other cases. We went to the company and said, can you help us . When they said they werent able to help us or they chose not to do so, we went back to court and said, the law says that third parties can be required to help us gain access to evidence. And the courts said yes. Thats where we are now. This really is an issue about
how the governments going to go about obtaining evidence that may be on an electronic device. Its our hope, its still our hope that they will see their way clear to complying with that order as thousands of other companies do every day. What the fbi wants does not currently exist. How can you really justify forcing apple against its will to work for you in essence by creating software it says would damage its own product. Well, apple is one of the most secure companies that we have, and they have done great work at protecting their own code and own intellectual property. Thats a great thing for american industry. What were asking them to do is to help us is to simply disable one feature, a feature that doesnt involve encryption at all. A feature that would era that phone and prevent us from accessing the evidence on it that we have obtained the lawful right to gather. Its not just that case, its
12 other federal cases involving 14 other phones, right . In every one of those cases, we have gone to court with a narrowly crafted request and said to the court, is this something that we can obtain under the law . And the courts have said, yes. And weve then gone to apple and said, we need your assistance here. And where theyve chosen not to, we would then go back to court and say, could you please direct them as you do companies every single day, to work with us . We prefer to work with them directly. And we still would. There are some who say that forcing apple to do that work for you would constitute involuntary servitude prohibited under the 13th amendment. How do you responds to that . Its a very important part of the constitution, its not implemented with a lawful court order and you simply say please comply with the law. That is not servitude of any kind. That is simply asking a company
to live up to its civic obligations and cooperate with Law Enforcement, as directed by a court. Tomorrow at the rsa Cyber Security conference you will announce that the u. S. And u. K. Have begun negotiations that would allow the British Government to subpoena American Companies for data relevant to investigations there. Even if the individuals involved are not american or that the crime happened on u. S. Soil. So how would the u. S. Benefit from that . American companies do business all over the world as they should. Theyre in a situation where there are vulnerabilities there. Were talking to the u. K. And we are. This is a case where, this case would be a situation where the u. K. Was investigating a crime in the u. K. Involving its own citizens, but because electronic evidence is such a part of every case, whether its here or overseas, the data if an American Company was involved, would be stored here. What were talking to the u. K. About, is trying to find a way to come up with a solution to help u. S. Companies comply with the british order, right now, american law says they cannot send that data overseas. Because they operate in the u. K. , theyre subject to u. K. Process and law there. Theyre in a bind. We work with industry and were talking to the u. K. , were looking to come up with a model that would let the u. K. Give an American Company an order for data on nonamerican citizens. It would not Cover American citizens or actions here. Back to apple, one of the things in the apple case is that apples compliance with the court order they say could open them up do other foreign governments. And legal actions similar to what youre talking about. How do you think this is going to go over with the Tech Community that its already concerned about privacy . This is something that the Tech Community has been supportive of. It helps them with the vulnerability that they currently have. They do business all over the
world. And they are subject to laws in the u. K. If theres an examination or investigation into a case occurring in great britain. This would allow them to comply without being out of compliance with u. S. Law. Security and privacy are tremendously important to the u. S. Government. Its one of our highest priorities. Every day in every single case involving criminal activity, we go to courts and say, heres a reason why we need to obtain something that is otherwise private. Are you confidence that this apple issue can be resolved . Or do you think its going to make its way to the u. S. Supreme court . I cant predict which way the case will go. I certainly feel that we put forth strong arguments and this is a matter of following this investigation where it leads. We have an obligation as Law Enforcement officers to follow every fact and every piece of evidence in an investigation like this one. And frankly in all of our cases. Thats what were trying to do here. Speaking of the supreme court. There are a growing number of
democrats who are calling on president obama to nominate you to fill the vacancy left open by Justice Scalias death. Have you been told youre under consideration . Havent had those conversations, im extremely happy with my job as attorney general. Havent been vetted . I havent had those conversations. The seat would shift dramatically the court. Does the administration truly believe republicans will allow a vote on something this dramatic of the u. S. Supreme court in the u. S. Senate . I cant speak for the senate in this. I know the administration has stated its intent to name a nominee. I assume theyll have discussions about whether or not that nomination will proceed. Certainly as someone who went through the nomination process quite recently. I think all vacancies should be filled as soon as possible. And if i ask it again, it will be the same answer . Yes. I have seen your testimony on capitol hill about the clinton investigation. The email investigation. Has a grand jury been convened
regarding Hillary Clintons handling of email. We dont comment on specifics, what i will say, is that this is a matter thats being handled like any other review we do, into how any agency has handled classified information. Its being handled by the career independent lawyers here at the department. They will review the facts and evidence and make a determination into course. I know you cant tell us what happens in a grand jury. Theres no law preventing you from telling a grand jury has been convened. Has one been convened . We dont comment on specifics of any of our investigations. Id be giving you the same answer again. Were looking at whether or not classified information was handled in a particular way, in an appropriate way. Its the type of case we look at all the time. Has it been concluded . I dont have any news for you on that front either. You stated a fewdies ago, that its being handled by
career independent Law Enforcement agents, fbi agents as well as career attorneys in the doj. Which section is working on the case . We dont go into that either. The matter is being reviewed like any other like it, when we look at how classified information has been handled. They look at all the facts and information, and will come to a decision in due time. National security . Public integrity . We dont comment. Does it concern you that theres a perception that your Justice Department may in the end cut secretary clinton a break or do her a favor, because of her last name or because the democrats want her on top of the ticket in the fall . Is that something youre concerned about . I think with every case, we handle it in the same way, thats what i like to convey to the american people, is that whether someone has an interest in a case because its interesting in the headlines or because theyre personally involved in it, if theyre the victim of a crime, we take it seriously and handle it
independently, thoroughly, fairly and efficiently. We have to handle every case in that way. We owe it to everyone. We owe it to the citizens and everybody who may be involved in a matter. Why hasnt secretary clinton been interviewed yet . We dont comment on the particulars of anything. Josh ernest recently said this about Hillary Clintons investigation from the White House Briefing room. I know that some officials have said is that she is not a target of the investigation. So are officials briefing josh ernest . I can tell you unequivocally, that no one outside of doj has been briefed on this or any other case. Its not our policy, and it hasnt happened in this matter. Where do you think he got that information . I cant speak for josh, i cant tell you. Anyone in the white house being briefed . No one in the white house or the department would be briefed on this case or any other case. Critics of the administrations handling this say David Petraeus was indicted for behavior that amounted to a tiny fraction of what we know
happened with secretary clinton. Are they wrong . I think every case is different. We look at the facts in evidence based on the Information Available in every matter. Its important for people to know whats right. What violates the law. Is it legal or illegal for federal employees, especially cabinet members to set up a private server to handle all government email correspondents. Im not going to give you a legal opinion on that. Since it is a matter that may be under review. Certainly the state Department Inspector general is looking at procedures and practices and policies of that department. Im not going to comment on that, except to say that our investigation is going to continue as any other case. Will it be wrapped up soon . We dont give you timing estimates either 37 again, we dont i guess there is a timetable that is hanging over this, you know. Shouldnt American Voters know Hillary Clintons legal status as they get prepared to head to the polls . What they should know and i hope they do know, is that any
case the department of justice looks at is going to be handled efficiently, fairly, thoroughly without any kind of artificial deadline on it, whats most important is to follow the facts, follow the law and come to an independent conclusion as to what may or may not have happened. Would you ever have a private server . With regard to . Emails. We use our doj servers here for emails. You wouldnt have a private server at home . I dont comment on that. You wouldnt. You use doj servers . I use the department of justice email system. Were getting word that secretary clintons former chief of staff cheryl mills has maintained her top secret security clearance despite sending information thats no deemed classified to the clinton foundation, and this unsecured server. Isnt it Standard Practice to suspend the clearance pending the outcome of an investigation . Im not going to comment on any of the individuals who may or may not be involved in this. Because it would depend very much on the facts of those particular circumstances. Is there any double standard here . Theres no double standard in this or any other matter being handled by the department of justice. Last thing on the clinton email. You understand why people are concerned that even democrats who say is there this shoe thats going to drop by the time you get a nominee, isnt it fair to know a status at some point in this election cycle if that is the person who looks like its going to be the nominee of the Democratic Party . Well, this matter is going to be handled like any other. And it will be resolved in due time. Whos the ultimate decider atth it depends how the matter comes together, you know, essentially, its going to be reviewed by those career independent agents and lawyers i mentioned, and theyll make a recommendation as to what they discovered and what they recommend. The up or down, yes or no, were goingforward or not, is
that you . Its going to depend on what they find. Have you ever not prosecuted when the fbi has said we recommend charges . You. Know, in my early days as a lawyer, one of my best jobs was doing intake for the u. S. Attorneys office, i sat and worked with the fbi a lot on matters and cases. We would sit together and talk about the best ways to craft search warrants or draft complaints. Or the best types of charges to bring in credit card cases or in bank robbery cases. I always thought thats its one of my best jobs. And one of the best things we do is Work Together with our Law Enforcement partners in reviewing evidence and coming to a conclusion as to whats there and whats not there. I listened to your answer before, and on capitol hill. If you are the ultimate decider, you obviously are a political appointee. So thats where the question comes, i guess. You said the independent investigators and agents will make the decision. The decider of whether to go forward is you, right . Well see what evidence develops and what facts develop, and well follow those to their natural conclusion. Have you ever told the president no on anything . You know, i dont go into specifics with my conversations with him. I cant think of an occasion where weve had contentious discussions about things. You know, like no mr. President , you cant do that. Ive made recommendations to him, he has accepted them and taken them. Ive given him my advice. I have certainly provided information and thought to him. Your predecessor, attorney general eric holder signed off on a search warrant for our colleague for doing his job. T attorney general holder later said his own handling of the affair was his biggest regret. At that time, the designation of a reporter as a criminal coconspirator by the doj, carried pretty significant precedent for all u. S. Attorneys. What view of the matter did you take at the time. I didnt have a view of the matter at the time. Because i wasnt involved in the matter. I didnt know about the facts or the irish yous to come to a conclusion. I did agree with the review that was set up within the department and the new policies have been promulgated. As attorney general now, ive had the good fortune to sit down with the working group that looks at those issues which is composed not just of doj officials, but also people in the media who consult with us. And who share their views with us, and who were helpful in setting up the policies and procedures. A number of safeguards were put in place that i do think were appropriate. And i think very effective, i think also have helped our
relationship with the press, i hope. I think the feedback and input we got from members of the press was helpful not just . Drafting the new policies, but in making sure that we understood their needs and concerns. Are we safer or more at risk than we were five years ago . I think its hard to put an absolute on that. Obviously the u. S. Is always a target. One of our greatest concerns and one of my highest priorities is National Security matters. As weve seen this threat morph and change over time, weve adapted as well. We have remained focused on thwarting that threat where we can. Where u. S. Interests are threatened here or overseas, we will and we do take action. What keeps you up at night . I think the greatest concerns that a number of us in Law Enforcement face these days really are cyber issues, Cyber Security is a huge concern of
ours as well. Not just in terms of the individual attacks, people who have had their identities stolen, those are devastating and i think the average american can relate to that, in a very, very real way. Possible threats to our corporate i. T. , to our corporate intellectual property p. M. The goodw